Tech-invite  3GPPspace  IETFspace
96  95  94  93  92  91  90  89  88  87  86  85  84  83  82  81  80  79  78  77  76  75  74  73  72  71  70  69  68  67  66  65  64  63  62  61  60  59  58  57  56  55  54  53  52  51  50  49  48  47  46  45  44  43  42  41  40  39  38  37  36  35  34  33  32  31  30  29  28  27  26  25  24  23  22  21  20  19  18  17  16  15  14  13  12  11  10  09  08  07  06  05  04  03  02  01  00 
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 9193

Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML) Fields for Indicating Data Value Content-Format

Pages: ~10
IETF/art/core/draft-ietf-core-senml-data-ct-07
Proposed Standard

 Top   ToC   RFCv3-9193
A. Keränen
Ericsson
C. Bormann
Universität Bremen TZI
June 2022

Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML) Fields for Indicating Data Value Content-Format

Abstract

The Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML) media types support multiple types of values, from numbers to text strings and arbitrary binary Data Values. In order to facilitate processing of binary Data Values, this document specifies a pair of new SenML fields for indicating the content format of those binary Data Values, i.e., their Internet media type, including parameters as well as any content codings applied.

Status of This Memo

This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9193.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
 Top   ToC   RFCv3-9193

Table of Contents

 Top   ToC   RFCv3-9193

1.  Introduction

The Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML) media types [RFC 8428] can be used to send various kinds of data. In the example given in Figure 1, a temperature value, an indication whether a lock is open, and a Data Value (with SenML field "vd") read from a Near Field Communication (NFC) reader is sent in a single SenML Pack. The example is given in SenML JSON representation, so the "vd" (Data Value) field is encoded as a base64url string (without padding), as per Section 5 of RFC 8428. 
[
  {"bn":"urn:dev:ow:10e2073a01080063:","n":"temp","u":"Cel","v":7.1},
  {"n":"open","vb":false},
  {"n":"nfc-reader","vd":"aGkgCg"}
]
The receiver is expected to know how to interpret the data in the "vd" field based on the context, e.g., the name of the data source and out-of-band knowledge of the application. However, this context may not always be easily available to entities processing the SenML Pack, especially if the Pack is propagated over time and via multiple entities. To facilitate automatic interpretation, it is useful to be able to indicate an Internet media type and, optionally, content codings right in the SenML Record.
The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Content-Format (Section 12.3 of RFC 7252) provides this information in the form of a single unsigned integer. For instance, [RFC 8949] defines the Content-Format number 60 for Content-Type application/cbor. Enclosing this Content-Format number in the Record is illustrated in Figure 2. All registered CoAP Content-Format numbers are listed in the "[IANA.core-parameters]" registry [IANA.core-parameters], as specified by Section 12.3 of RFC 7252. Note that, at the time of writing, the structure of this registry only provides for zero or one content coding; nothing in the present document needs to change if the registry is extended to allow sequences of content codings. 
{"n":"nfc-reader", "vd":"gmNmb28YKg", "ct":"60"}
In this example SenML Record, the Data Value contains a string "foo" and a number 42 encoded in a Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC 8949] array. Since the example above uses the JSON format of SenML, the Data Value containing the binary CBOR value is base64 encoded (Section 5 of RFC 4648). The Data Value after base64 decoding is shown with CBOR diagnostic notation in Figure 3. 
82           # array(2)
   63        # text(3)
      666F6F # "foo"
   18 2A     # unsigned(42)

1.1.  Evolution

As with SenML in general, there is no expectation that the creator of a SenML Pack knows (or has negotiated with) each consumer of that Pack, which may be very remote in space and particularly in time. This means that the SenML creator in general has no way to know whether the consumer knows:
  • each specific Media-Type-Name used,
  • each parameter and each parameter value used,
  • each content coding in use, and
  • each Content-Format number in use for a combination of these.
What SenML, as well as the new fields defined here, guarantees is that a recipient implementation knows when it needs to be updated to understand these field values and the values controlled by them; registries are used to evolve these name spaces in a controlled way. SenML Packs can be processed by a consumer while not understanding all the information in them, and information can generally be preserved in this processing such that it is useful for further consumers.
 Top   ToC   RFCv3-9193

2.  Terminology

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC 2119] [RFC 8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
Media type:
A registered label for representations (byte strings) prepared forinterchange [RFC 1590] [RFC 6838], identified by a Media-Type-Name.
Media-Type-Name:
A combination of a type-name and a subtype-name registered in[IANA.media-types], as per [RFC 6838], conventionallyidentified by the two names separated by a slash.
Content-Type:
A Media-Type-Name, optionally associated with parameters(Section 5 of RFC 2045, separated fromthe Media-Type-Name and from each other by a semicolon).In HTTP and many other protocols, it is used in a Content-Type header field.
Content coding:
A name registered in the "[IANA.http-parameters]" [IANA.http-parameters], as specified bySections 16.6.1 and 18.6 of [RFC 9110], indicating an encodingtransformation with semantics further specified in Section 8.4.1 of RFC 9110.Confusingly, in HTTP, content coding values are found in a header fieldcalled "Content-Encoding"; however, "content coding" is the correctterm for the process and the registered values.
Content format:
The combination of a Content-Type and zero or more content codings, identifiedby (1) a numeric identifier defined in the "[IANA.core-parameters]" registry [IANA.core-parameters],as per Section 12.3 of RFC 7252 (referred to as Content-Formatnumber), or (2) a Content-Format-String.
Content-Format-String:
The string representation of the combination of a Content-Type and zero or more content codings.
Content-Format-Spec:
The string representation of a content format; either a Content-Format-String or the (decimal) string representation of a Content-Format number.
Readers should also be familiar with the terms and concepts discussed in [RFC 8428].
 Top   ToC   RFCv3-9193

3.  SenML Content-Format ("ct") Field

When a SenML Record contains a Data Value field ("vd"), the Record MAY also include a Content-Format indication field, using label "ct". The value of this field is a Content-Format-Spec, i.e., one of the following:
  • a CoAP Content-Format number in decimal form with no leading zeros (except for the value "0" itself). This value represents an unsigned integer in the range of 0-65535, similar to the "ct" attribute defined in Section 7.2.1 of RFC 7252 for CoRE Link Format [RFC 6690].
  • a Content-Format-String containing a Content-Type and zero or more content codings (see below).
The syntax of this field is formally defined in Section 6.
The CoAP Content-Format number provides a simple and efficient way to indicate the type of the data. Since some Internet media types and their content coding and parameter alternatives do not have assigned CoAP Content-Format numbers, using Content-Type and zero or more content codings is also allowed. Both methods use a string value in the "ct" field to keep its data type consistent across uses. When the "ct" field contains only digits, it is interpreted as a CoAP Content-Format number.
To indicate that one or more content codings are used with a Content-Type, each of the content coding values is appended to the Content-Type value (media type and parameters, if any), separated by an "@" sign, in the order of when the content codings were applied (the same order as in Section 8.4 of RFC 9110). For example (using a content coding value of "deflate", as defined in Section 8.4.1.2 of RFC 9110): 
text/plain; charset=utf-8@deflate
If no "@" sign is present after the media type and parameters, then no content coding has been specified, and the "identity" content coding is used -- no encoding transformation is employed.
 Top   ToC   RFCv3-9193

4.  SenML Base Content-Format ("bct") Field

The Base Content-Format field, label "bct", provides a default value for the Content-Format field (label "ct") within its range. The range of the base field includes the Record containing it, up to (but not including) the next Record containing a "bct" field, if any, or up to the end of the Pack otherwise. The process of resolving (Section 4.6 of RFC 8428) this base field is performed by adding its value with the label "ct" to all Records in this range that carry a "vd" field but do not already contain a Content-Format ("ct") field.
Figure 4 shows a variation of Figure 2 with multiple records, with the "nfc-reader" records resolving to the base field value "60" and the "iris-photo" record overriding this with the "image/png" media type (actual data left out for brevity). 
[
  {"n":"nfc-reader", "vd":"gmNmb28YKg",
   "bct":"60", "bt":1627430700},
  {"n":"nfc-reader", "vd":"gmNiYXIYKw", "t":10},
  {"n":"iris-photo", "vd":".....", "ct":"image/png", "t":10},
  {"n":"nfc-reader", "vd":"gmNiYXoYLA", "t":20}
]
 Top   ToC   RFCv3-9193

5.  Examples

The following examples are valid values for the "ct" and "bct" fields (explanation/comments in parentheses):
  • "60" (CoAP Content-Format number for "application/cbor")
  • "0" (CoAP Content-Format number for "text/plain" with parameter "charset=utf-8")
  • "application/json" (JSON Content-Type -- equivalent to "50" CoAP Content-Format number)
  • "application/json@deflate" (JSON Content-Type with "deflate" as content coding -- equivalent to "11050" CoAP Content-Format number)
  • "application/json@deflate@aes128gcm" (JSON Content-Type with "deflate" followed by "aes128gcm" as content codings)
  • "text/csv" (Comma-Separated Values (CSV) [RFC 4180] Content-Type)
  • "text/csv;header=present@gzip" (CSV with header row, using "gzip" as content coding)
 Top   ToC   RFCv3-9193

6.  ABNF

This specification provides a formal definition of the syntax of Content-Format-Spec strings using ABNF notation [RFC 5234], which contains three new rules and a number of rules collected and adapted from various RFCs [RFC 9110] [RFC 6838] [RFC 5234] [RFC 8866]. 
; New in this document

Content-Format-Spec = Content-Format-Number / Content-Format-String

Content-Format-Number = "0" / (POS-DIGIT *DIGIT)
Content-Format-String   = Content-Type *("@" Content-Coding)

; Cleaned up from RFC 9110,
; leaving only SP as blank space,
; removing legacy 8-bit characters, and
; leaving the parameter as mandatory with each semicolon:

Content-Type   = Media-Type-Name *( *SP ";" *SP parameter )
parameter      = token "=" ( token / quoted-string )

token          = 1*tchar
tchar          = "!" / "#" / "$" / "%" / "&" / "'" / "*"
               / "+" / "-" / "." / "^" / "_" / "`" / "|" / "~"
               / DIGIT / ALPHA
quoted-string  = %x22 *( qdtext / quoted-pair ) %x22
qdtext         = SP / %x21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E
quoted-pair    = "\" ( SP / VCHAR )

; Adapted from Section 8.4.1 of RFC 9110

Content-Coding   = token

; Adapted from various specs

Media-Type-Name = type-name "/" subtype-name

; From RFC 6838

type-name = restricted-name
subtype-name = restricted-name

restricted-name = restricted-name-first *126restricted-name-chars
restricted-name-first  = ALPHA / DIGIT
restricted-name-chars  = ALPHA / DIGIT / "!" / "#" /
                         "$" / "&" / "-" / "^" / "_"
restricted-name-chars =/ "." ; Characters before first dot always
                             ; specify a facet name
restricted-name-chars =/ "+" ; Characters after last plus always
                             ; specify a structured syntax suffix


; Boilerplate from RFC 5234 and RFC 8866

DIGIT     =  %x30-39           ; 0 - 9
POS-DIGIT =  %x31-39           ; 1 - 9
ALPHA     =  %x41-5A / %x61-7A ; A - Z / a - z
SP        =  %x20
VCHAR     =  %x21-7E           ; printable ASCII (no SP)
 Top   ToC   RFCv3-9193

7.  Security Considerations

The indication of a media type in the data does not exempt a consuming application from properly checking its inputs. Also, the ability for an attacker to supply crafted SenML data that specifies media types chosen by the attacker may expose vulnerabilities of handlers for these media types to the attacker. This includes "decompression bombs", compressed data that is crafted to decompress to extremely large data items.
 Top   ToC   RFCv3-9193

8.  IANA Considerations

IANA has assigned the following new labels in the "[IANA.senml]" subregistry of the "Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML)" registry [IANA.senml] (as defined in Section 12.2 of RFC 8428) for the Content-Format indication, as per Table 1:
Name Label JSON Type XML Type Reference
Base Content-Format bct String string RFC 9193
Content-Format ct String string RFC 9193
Table 1: IANA Registration for New SenML Labels
Note that, per Section 12.2 of RFC 8428, no CBOR labels nor Efficient XML Interchange (EXI) schemaId values (EXI ID column) are supplied.
 Top   ToC   RFCv3-9193

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

[IANA.core-parameters]
IANA, "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters>.
[IANA.http-parameters]
IANA, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-parameters>.
[IANA.media-types]
IANA, "Media Types",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types>.
[IANA.senml]
IANA, "Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML)",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/senml>.
[RFC2045]
N. Freed, and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2045, DOI 10.17487/RFC2045, November 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2045>.
[RFC2119]
S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5234]
D. Crocker, and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC7252]
Z. Shelby, K. Hartke, and C. Bormann, "The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252, DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[RFC8174]
B. Leiba, "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8428]
C. Jennings, Z. Shelby, J. Arkko, A. Keranen, and C. Bormann, "Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML)", RFC 8428, DOI 10.17487/RFC8428, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8428>.
[RFC9110]
R Fielding, M Nottingham, and J Reschke, "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110, DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, February 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110>.

9.2.  Informative References

[RFC1590]
J. Postel, "Media Type Registration Procedure", RFC 1590, DOI 10.17487/RFC1590, March 1994,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1590>.
[RFC4180]
Y. Shafranovich, "Common Format and MIME Type for Comma-Separated Values (CSV) Files", RFC 4180, DOI 10.17487/RFC4180, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4180>.
[RFC4648]
S. Josefsson, "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
[RFC6690]
Z. Shelby, "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link Format", RFC 6690, DOI 10.17487/RFC6690, August 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6690>.
[RFC6838]
N. Freed, J. Klensin, and T. Hansen, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
[RFC8866]
A. Begen, P. Kyzivat, C. Perkins, and M. Handley, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 8866, DOI 10.17487/RFC8866, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8866>.
[RFC8949]
C. Bormann, and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949, DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.
 Top   ToC   RFCv3-9193

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Sérgio Abreu for the discussions leading to the design of this extension and Isaac Rivera for reviews and feedback. Klaus Hartke suggested not burdening this document with a separate mandatory-to-implement version of the fields. Alexey Melnikov, Jim Schaad, and Thomas Fossati provided helpful comments at Working Group Last Call. Marco Tiloca asked for clarifying and using the term Content-Format-Spec.
 Top   ToC   RFCv3-9193

Authors' Addresses

Ari Keränen

Ericsson
Jorvas   02420
Finland

Carsten Bormann

Universität Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
Bremen   D-28359
Germany
 Top   ToC